Akirapryde2006
12/28/15 01:34 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Please make no mistake. This post has the direct intention of changing the rules regarding Fire Control, weapons per facing and ranges of non-capital weapons regarding warship construction. It is my hope to create a discussion (based on respect to the authors of Strategic Operations and informative for all) that can achieve the desired goal stated above.
Here is the rule that has created this issue as found in Strategic Operations Page 155:
Fire Control Systems: Advanced aerospace units have the option of exceeding their listed maximum of weapons per arc, at the designer's option, but if they do so, additional fire control systems and power distribution systems will need to be installed. To determine the weight of these systems, divide the number of weapons mounted in any firing arc that exceeds its weapon limits (12 for JumpShips, 20 for Space Stations and WarShips) by the limit value, and round the result down to the nearest whole number. Multiply this result by 0.1 times the total weight of all weapons mounted in that arc (discounting ammunition), and round the final result up to the nearest half. This is the final weight of any expanded fire control and power systems the unit requires for such weaponry.
First and foremost, this rule has every reason to exist. Don't get me wrong, I support the concept behind this rule. It was designed in to the mechanics to avoid abuse in warship design in regards to Non-Capital Weapons being installed on warships.
That being said the first problem with this design comes in the fact that it treats all space stations and warships the same. For the sake of this conversation I will be referring to four examples throughout this conversation.
McKenna Class Battleship
USS Iowa (BB-4)
Nightlord Class Battleships
USS Iowa (BB-61)
It is my intention to show how the current rules that govern ranges between Capital Weapons and Non-Capital Weapons has created a situation that makes abuse feasible and a need for this anti-abuse rule.
Let us please look at the rule. No warship or space station can have more than 20 weapons per firing arc without having additional Fire Control components to offset the increased in numbers. Already each Capital Weapon requires its own gunner (or in some canon novels, gun crews). So once you pass that 20 weapon threshold, you are required to pay 10 percent addition weight for all weapons in that firing arc. This is a double (penalizing) cost for additional weapons. It assumes that a warship of 100,000 tons will desire the same number of weapons as a warship twenty-five times larger without having to pay the penalty in weight.
It also assumes that warships have all the same role in combat. Nowhere in the strategic operations book is this pronounced than in the section titled, "BATTLESHIPS, HEAVY CRUISERS AND CORVETTES, OH MY" on page 128 of the Strategic Operations book. Now, I give the author of this section credit in some notable points about warships and their role. However, the author (in my humble opinion) is mistaken when he/she stated "The actual applications of WarShips in the past two decades have often varied substantially from their grandiose planned roles. Escorts, multi-role cruisers, carrier-killers' all nice and well, but most WarShips have been used in the same fashion: as capital weapon platforms for aerospace superiority, as bombardment units and sometimes as troop transports."
During the height of the Star League and through its fall, warships have played key roles in battles that far exceeded these limits roles listed in this section. Battleships are the cornerstone of a fleet while cruisers are the heart and core of the fleet. Destroyers and Corvettes are designed to operate on the fringes of the fleet to protect the fleet from small fasting moving enemies like dropships and fighters. In real world terms, the Destroyer (or by its original name Torpedo Boat Destroyer) was designed to protect the fleet against fast moving hard to hit torpedo boats that threatened the larger ships of the fleet. Battleships and Cruisers were designed to slug it out and win the overall battle.
By their very nature, the Destroyers were designed with smaller more numerous weapons. Take the Caldwell Class Destroyer if you will. The ship is faster than larger ships but carries smaller weapons designed to target fast moving targets like torpedo boats. So while the Caldwell Destroyer fits the rule nicely, the role of the mainline battleship casts this rule out the window.
Look at the WWI version of the USS Iowa (BB-4). This ship was designed to fight with over 40 heavy guns. Take a long look at the USS Olympia. Her powerful guns were not as heavy as the USS Iowa but she carries a wider range of different weapons further reflecting her role as a battle-wagon of the fleet. However while the USS Olympia was the battle-wagon of the fleet, the USS Iowa and battleships like her were the pride of the fleet. This is the same with the massive McKenna Class Battleships. In both cases, these two ships were designed to be powerful ships of the line. Meant to slug it out in long battle lines. These ships were more than just the heavy weights of their navies, but the pride and symbols of their respected powers.
What makes these ships formidable on the high seas is their use of turrets. At the dawn of WWI we started to see a shift away from the standard broadside to the use of turrets. This started with the historical battle between the CSN Virginia and the USS Monitor. However, the use of turrets in Battletech warship design is not allowed. Another rule which further limits warship design and effectiveness in battle. As seen in the Caldwell Class, the USS Olympia and the USS Iowa (BB-4), their major armaments were built within turrets. This gave the ships remarkable fire power projection.
By restricting turrets, you force addition weapons to be placed on warships further driving up their weight and costs. While turrets would be nice and bring warship design more in line with modern thinking. This is not the goal of this thread.
We have to look closely at how the 20 weapon limit, changes the design abilities of the warships. We know that the different warship design serves different roles. Logic tells us that larger warships should be able to carry larger amount and bigger weapons without penalty. Already the designer is paying for the number in terms of weapon weight and cost, but also in crew requirements and support needed for the warship. (If these two rules were enforced you would see a larger reduction in abuse)
With warships already hamstrung by lack of turrets, why limit the number of weapons the ship can carry? The answer is found in Battlespace ranges of non-capital weapons. Take the ER-PPC, the largest energy based weapon that is not of Capital Class design. On the standard battlefield, the ER-PPC can reach out to 23 hexes at long range. With each hex being 30 meters across, that's an effective range of 690 meters. Pretty impressive for a non-capital weapon. However, let us look at its capital cousin, the Light Naval PPC. The Light Naval PPC has a long range of long range of 33. On the surface, seems comparable, but they are not! And here is where the flaw in ranges begins.
The rule from the Strategic Operations book that governs ranges of Non-Capital Weapons as found on page 362.
Range Brackets: Whether or not a weapon can do damage in a given range bracket is a function of its maximum range in BattleTech hexes. Standard Weapons: Weapons with a maximum range equal to or less than 3 are limited to the short range bracket. Weapons with a maximum range equal to or less than 15 may do damage in the short and medium range brackets. Weapons with a maximum range equal to or greater than 16 may do damage in short, medium and long range brackets. Weapons with a maximum range of 24 or more are capable of doing damage in any range bracket, including extreme range. Some weapons have had their range brackets adjusted for game play purposes.
This rule implies that the range of an ER PPC can be so easily convert from a map that governs roughly 510 meters squared (17 by 17 thirty meter hexes) to a map where just one of these standard maps equals a single hex in the Aerospace maps. Now I am not saying that the authors of Strategic Operations created this flaw or misrepresentation. Not at all. I am aware that this flaw started in the Battlespace rules and has so far carried over in to all other rules published since. But now, it is time that this rule be changed!
You have a massive Naval PPC that weighs 200 times that of a ER PPC which is deigned to fire at ranges of greater than sixteen thousand meters in one hand and a ER PPC that can barely fire at ranges of four percent of its large cousin. Yet in the current rules, the ranges are comparable in hexes. I am not saying that they are the same. But they are close enough to be comparable. This is the flaw. It would be like comparing ranges of a .22 to a 155mm Howitzer!
It was used as an example to why the 20 weapon rule exist, to prevent a battleship with hundreds of Tommy guns mounted on it. And let me illustrate that I don't disagree with the concept here.
However, if the ranges were correct, then not even a million Tommy guns couldn't threaten a smaller warship with two small naval guns. The ranges would be so lopsided that the battleship with the Tommy guns would never have a chance to fire while the smaller ship with two naval guns remained out of range. And even if the Tommy guns could make range, their combined firepower against warship armor shouldn't even be a factor. It would be like shooting a 88mm at a battleship during WWII.
In fact that is what happened. During Operation Overlord, the USS Texas sailed close to the coast line to provide direct fire support. The Germans fired at the massive battleship with their 88's with no effect. The armor of the USS Texas was simply too thick for the 88mm to penetrate at range. This was also true for direct fire artillery of the day. In short standard battlefield weapons didn't compare to the armor of the warships. This is the reason why vital targets were protected by massive coastal defense guns.
And based on this, I would even go as far as suggesting that Capital armor should even have their damage soak ability adjusted to reflect the awesome protection that they represent against non-capital weapons. But that is not the goal of this post nor an issue I am willing to press.
All this being said, non-Capital weapons do have their place on warships. At the turn of the century between World War I and World War II, historically we saw a change in warship design. In reaction to the current threats of the period warships started to mount anti-fighter weapons along side their main batteries.
These weapons played critical roles in protecting the warship against the fast moving fighters that would often swarm warships. During WWII we saw warships across the world falling victim to aircraft. Take the USS Iowa (BB-61). At the height of WWII, the USS Iowa mounted 80 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns, and 49 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons. This didn't take in to account the hundreds of .50 Cal machine guns that was used for anti-aircraft operations as well. The Nightlord Class battleship of our game also started to mount anti-fighter weapons in answer to the fighters of the Inner Sphere. This created a new line of thinking among warship designers.
During WWI, the torpedo boats and enemy warships were the bane of the classic warship. As seen during the Battle of Jutland, where ships of the line moved in formation and slugged it out. However, During WWII, the aircraft became the bane of the warship. As seen throughout the battles of the Pacific, aircraft played more and more of a critical role in naval operations. And what warship design took center stage? The Aircraft Carrier! Nowhere was this more defined then the Battle of the Coral Sea. For the first time, major opposing fleets never were in sight of each other (arguably, though I would say the Battle of Taranto and the attack on Perl Harbor were the actual first two, but that is my opinion)
Now I am not saying that in our game, warships need go the same path as large naval warships of the real world. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that warships shouldn't play a role in our game/universe? Hardly, it is my understanding that warships play a critical role in the game and can be decisive in key battles. A single warship can mean all the difference between victory or defeat.
But warships are also more than just troop transports, more than just tools to bombard worlds in to submission. During the fall of the Star League, there were stories of heroic battles between warships. Warships can in fact spring some surprising story lines.
However, if we hamstring our warships with this 20 weapon rule we will allow fighters and dropships to hold a weight to range advantage over warships. A single wing of fighters would be able to engage warships at comparable ranges. Because cost is a factor in both units, warship designs will drift from the battlefield. This will not enhance our game but deny commanders a powerful tool in defending their systems from attack by larger powers.
Designers of warships need to have the ability to build their warships based on the needs of the battlefield and the role of their ships. This also means removing the restrictions on Monitors as well. For canon has already supported the use of monitors within the Star League's SDS. By allowing Monitors back in to the game, we give a new rule for warship designers and a new dimension of the battlefield.
Also ranges of non-capital weapons need to be adjusted correctly and to scale of their Capital Cousins. At no time should any non-capital weapon be able to fire beyond short range. In fact, in terms of scale for Aerospace ranges between warships and smaller units. Non-capital weapons shouldn't be able to range further than 3 hexes.
For example: If the non-capital weapon's maximum range is 3 or less, give it a Aeropsace range of point or zero. If the maximum range is 3-9 give it an aerospace range of one. If the maximum range of the 10 -19, give it an aerospace range of two. If the maximum range of the non-capital weapon is 20 or greater, then give it an aerospace range of three.
By adjusting the ranges, removing the restriction on monitor and allowing turrets, you deal with the desire to abuse non-capital weapons. Maintain the fire power superiority of Capital weapons and allow warship designers to create warships more in line with traditional concepts. This will also allow warships of different classes to start to define themselves within their given roles. These changes will allow warships to continue to play a critical role in the game and in the future of Battletech for years to come.
Akirapryde
Cited Source: ER PPC
Cite Source: Light Naval PPC
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (12/28/15 01:35 PM)
|
ghostrider
12/29/15 01:40 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Not having any thing other the aerotech one, I was unaware that warships could not use turrets. If this is true, then there is no way any weapons not in a straight line with the enemy could have a chance to hit. I can understand if the developers were suggesting the turrets would freeze when subjected to space, but that would also mean any servo motors that can be used to point the weapon some wheres other the straight out.
The range issue was mentioned in other threads as how things lime missiles go from not being able to go a kilometer on a planet, but now can to several in space. But that isn't the point here. Though I think no non capital weapons would reach beyond 2 space hexes, as that would be 1 kilometer to my knowledge. Though newer weapons might go further then 33 hexes.
I do agree it is extremely stupid to say that the largest of warships can mount only 20 weapons in one arc, which is the same amount as smaller ships. That means losing point weapons as well as anti missile defenses as they would be considered weapons.
Though looking over the designs in the tros, I am betting that is why they came up with the broadsides, or middle arc. so technically warships have bowside, aftside, and the middle (broadside) to fire to one side. With this addition, I can see part of limiting the amount of weapons as the broadside covers front and rear side arcs as well.
The only reason I can think of to disallowed turrets is to artificially limit warships like they did with vehicles with advanced equipment.
I don't have the rules, but what is in place to prevent a warship from spinning on it's axis and firing both sides into combat in a round?
Don't think it was the same firing turn, but one of the novels did it with a (I believe)sovetskii soyuz. And that same book they suggested all weapons could fire straight above the ship. I guess I will have to look thru them again to find out what page this was on. I want to say it was Phelan Ward commanding the Werewolf during the invasion of tharkad, but not completely sure.
|
ghostrider
01/02/16 01:05 PM
98.150.102.177
|
The conversation about space fighters is bringing up a very good point on why turrets are needed in space combats. The idea of a static position weapon would not be able to properly target a moving ship, as you have all three dimensions to worry about as well as trying to maneuver your own ship to avoid incoming fire.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/07/16 05:52 PM
70.122.160.150
|
On the subject of turrets.
All conventional fighters and aerospace assets use turrets they are automatically used and no weight is assigned to them. If you just look at art work of ships you will see the turrets are present.They are just limited to one firing ark do to the 360 degree X, Y, & Z directions of possible fire.
A water born ship is limited to something like maybe a 45 degree firing ark when it comes to the Z direction of fire for capital weapons and maybe a 90 degree firing ark for fixed anti-fighter guns and maybe a 180 degree firing ark for pinnacle mount anti-fighter machine guns.
On the subject of range.
I would support the cutting the range of classical weapons by half. I do agree that they are over powering as they are. There should be three classes of weapon ranges, classical, Sub capital, and capital.
Classical weapons use half standard range
Sub-capital weapons use standard range
Capital weapons use double standard range.
On the subject of the limited number of weapons per ark.
I think the number of weapons should be determined by mass of the ship and not the class of the ship. As for the numbers of weapons; a ship should have the number of weapons to be determined separately between classical and sub/capital systems. The extra cost in weight for fire-control would be determined separately between sub/capital weapons and classical weapons The standard 10% for capital weapons & 25% for sub-capital weapons per limit and 100% for classical weapons per limit.
Dropships and capital weapons
I also think that drop ships should be allowed to have a very limited number of capital weapons mounted in the bow of the ship and limited to only a fixed one hex firing ark. You aim the ship at the target not the weapon. To hit the target you don't use a weapon to hit roll but instead you use a piloting skill roll to see if the crew/pilot was able to line up the ship to the target. If you wanted to make it even harder after the weapon was fired you could make two rolls required a piloting roll to line up the ship to the target and then a weapon skill roll to see if you even hit the target. Also the number of classical weapons would be severally limited do to the capital weapon taking up so much space in the bow.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
02/08/16 01:17 AM
98.150.102.177
|
The idea of drop ships having capital weapons. Would that be based on their size and weight or something else? I would figure a war craft would be able to handle one better then a civilian craft, as the structure, power and coolant systems would be more heavy duty to deal with it without extra costs or work.
I don't recall aircraft or fighters having turrets for the most part, though some pics suggest they do. I don't remember anything about them not costing weight on those units. I may have to dig deeper into the books, and see. As I said before, aerotech is the only rule book I have dealing with space assets so my knowledge is extremely limited.
Edited by ghostrider (02/08/16 01:23 AM)
|
ghostrider
02/08/16 01:32 AM
98.150.102.177
|
As for range of weapons there is a thought I had about them.
Capital non flamer energy weapons I am fine with extending the range, but ballistic and missile weapons run into the dodging issues. Maybe cut their range, but give then an added bonus to damage or random movement as the kinetic forces would play havoc with trying to maintain a course or control a turn.
As a further option, the more damage it does at once should increase the chance of a random movement. Size of ship might lessen or negate this, but might be getting too complicated with that.
The limits of the turreted sea vessels. Is that reality based or game based? I thought the main guns on battleships could fire in almost 270 degree arc, only being limited to avoid shooting the ships tower and such. Broadside guns might be the 45 degree arc limit. Would you clear this up for this conversation?
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/08/16 10:35 AM
70.122.160.150
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes: The limits of the turreted sea vessels. Is that reality based or game based? I thought the main guns on battleships could fire in almost 270 degree arc, only being limited to avoid shooting the ships tower and such. Broadside guns might be the 45 degree arc limit. Would you clear this up for this conversation?
Remember there are three dimensions, width, depth, and height. I was talking of height where your talking of width.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
02/08/16 11:26 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I thought about that just as I was getting on line. But it is still nice to have it in writing.
I know this isn't going to be a popular thought, but honestly. The different weapon systems should cost more when combined, as size, weight, and firing characteristics would be an issue with the different types firing, making it more difficult to target a craft. Maybe even to the point of needing them in separate turrets.
Just as the 16 inch guns are not housed with the 50 caliber mgs.
Which calls to question. How many weapons do fit in a turret on a warship in the game? Like a battleship in real life seems to have 3 cannons per turret for the main guns.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 22 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 6368
|
|
|
|
|
|
|